Comments on: Step One: Take Down All Outposts and Totally Freeze Constructionhttps://mitchellplitnick.com/2009/05/15/step-one-take-down-all-outposts-and-totally-freeze-construction/
Political Analysis by Mitchell PlitnickTue, 15 Aug 2017 12:01:22 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Trollsteinhttps://mitchellplitnick.com/2009/05/15/step-one-take-down-all-outposts-and-totally-freeze-construction/#comment-983
Tue, 19 May 2009 22:33:39 +0000http://mitchellplitnick.com/?p=118#comment-983Mitchell wrote:
“ . . .From expropriation of Palestinian land . . . . “
The above alligation ranges from misleading to false, possibly both. Since pre WW1 “Palestine” was 24,000 Sq. miles and included all of Jordan, yes, technically, whatever of it is neither Jordan or Israel is therefore to be called “Palestine”. But the bigger question is: Is it legally Israel? The Plitnick statement is misleading because it wrongly implies that actual Palestinian-Arab people have been removed from land they personally owned to make way for Jewish so called “settlements”. When in point of fact most every square inch of these Hebrew neighborhoods has been built on previously PUBLIC (not private) land, which belonged to the Turkish government for 400 years prior to WW1..
Thus, which ever nation belongs to that land is the nation who rightly controls it and can do with it as it pleases. I submit that the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza legally belong to Israel. The only way it does NOT legally belong to Israel is if one gives the United Nations the authority to redraw national borders, a power it has never had. Because the earlier treaties of Versailles and San Remo, as well as the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine chartered TWO (and only two) new states, those being the “Jewish National Homeland” and, whatever else remained. “Whatever else remained” became Jordan. Whatever DID NOT remain became Israel, although, the two events came transposed–chronologically. Thus, the creation of “Palestine” would constitute a THREE state solution.
That said, as a practical matter, millions of non-Jewish people live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are entitled to human rights which ultimately means obtaining some nationality. Israel must either accept them as voting Israelis or otherwise, provide for a third state which the Arabs would control. In the long run, I think Israel has been far more pro-active in the creation of the (third) state then the Arabs themselves, many of whom do NOT want a third state (or even a second state) but only want to possess the Jewish state.
But the creation of the third state of “Palestine” is a separate discussion from stopping of building of Jewish neighborhoods. The borders of the new Arab state are for the parties to agree on or disagree on. If the agreed-to borders were to include some Jewish neighborhoods, that is how horse-trading is done. Perhaps the new agreed-to borders might include some Arab neighborhoods inside the final Israeli borders. Perhaps each side gives up some turf. These are all questions to be addressed in tandem by the parties with final agreed-to borders.
That also said, if Israel had previously agreed to stop new neighborhood expansion in certain disputed areas, then, they should have to abide by their earlier commitment. I am not certain how these “check-points” factor into the previous Israeli agreements. If they had agreed, then, as before, they should live-up.
But I am also certain that eventually, the so called “road-map” can be abandoned by one or both sides. At that point, all interim concessions would become nullified.
Ultimately, the Arabs have always demanded what they can’t have. Namely, regional control over the Jews. Peace with the Palestinian-Arabs has never been a matter of the Jews minding their manners—even though that is the load of crap we the public has been endlessly sold for decades. The public always buys it because (for the most part) it enjoys the age old character of “Fagan” the Jew–like an Orwellian Trilogy that never ends.
]]>